‘Verify, but do not trust': Arizona's troubling execution history continues

Yahoo

03-03-2025

Arizona has carried out most executions with lethal injection since 1992, but with a litany of changing protocols and problems, which ultimately halted executions in the state for eight years. Photo courtesy Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry
The Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry has a long history of troublesome administration of its lethal injection protocol. Since 2010, the state has carried out 16 executions by lethal injection, most with complications. ADCRR's actions during those executions show a history of last-minute changes, violations of the protocol and problematic executions — all against a backdrop of secrecy and no public accountability.
In January 2023, Gov. Katie Hobbs recognized the state's recent history of executions raised 'serious questions about ADCRR's execution protocols and lack of transparency.' She issued an executive order establishing an Independent Review Commissioner to review and provide transparency into Arizona's execution process.
The governor appointed retired federal Magistrate Judge David Duncan to carry out this task. Her order to him was to issue a final report 'that includes recommendations on improving the transparency, accountability, and safety of the execution process.' This was welcome news, and the governor was applauded for her seemingly serious and courageous action.
In less than two years, with three months remaining on his contract, the governor fired Duncan. She questioned the scope of Judge Duncan's work even though his draft summary and emails demonstrated that he was on the right track: he identified significant and important issues regarding the execution process. But issues of transparency, accountability, and safety no longer seem important to the governor. Instead, she relies on an internal review of the execution process conducted by ADCRR and intends to allow executions to move forward.
The same secrecy and shadiness that plagued the ADCRR in the past, is still in effect today.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Ashely Oddo, General Counsel for ADCRR, wrote a letter on Oct. 4, 2024, to the Independent Review Commissioner which outlined the qualifications and background of the four members of the 'IV/Medical team' — the executioners. She noted, 'ADCRR reviewed the qualifications, education, and work experience of each team member. ADCRR also interviewed each of the team members and completed a background investigation on each.'
However, the public does not know the qualifications of the independent contractors who will be responsible for executions in the name of the people of Arizona. Under existing law, the names of these individuals are 'confidential and … not subject to disclosure.' But the background investigation, interview notes, professional licenses and documentation of how the individuals will be compensated, with taxpayer funds, can all be provided with the names redacted.
This is not the only concern. Duncan noted in his draft summary that shipments of state procured lethal drugs were delivered to a private home in Phoenix and lethal drugs were stored in unmarked jars.
There is an old Russian proverb, 'Trust, but verify.' When ADCRR speaks on matters related to executions, the approach should be, 'Verify, but do not trust.' I should know.
Between 2007 and 2022, when I was a federal public defender, our office was involved in extensive litigation over the execution protocols in Arizona. At issue were the nature and origin of the drugs used, the qualifications of the executioners, the procedures followed and what could be seen and heard during executions.
Along the way, we learned that when ADCRR made an avowal or a representation, it was not always true. When it came to executions, ADCRR thought it was okay to break the law in order to enforce the law. Here are a few examples spanning three generations of ADCRR directors.
During litigation in 2009, Director Dora Schriro made representations regarding the qualifications of execution-team members. Selection of the team members included a review of the contract team members' professional qualifications, training, licenses and criminal histories. There were personal interviews of the contractors. Everyone was qualified and competent. In other words, 'trust us.'
But during depositions, we learned that a contract team member 'did not attend medical school, was once a nurse, had his nursing license suspended, attended emergency medical technician training, and is not a licensed emergency medical technician. He . . . [was] treated by the Veterans Administration for post-traumatic stress disorder. He has been arrested multiple times, including three times in ten days in Arizona for a DUI.' So much for 'trust us.'
We have learned that when ADCRR made an avowal or a representation, it was not always true. When it came to executions, ADCRR thought it was okay to break the law in order to enforce the law.
In 2010 and 2011, Director Charles Ryan repeatedly avowed in state and federal courts that ADCRR had complied with applicable laws when it obtained sodium thiopental from the United Kingdom to be used in executions. An ADCRR deputy director provided documents during a deposition that he ignored counterfeiting and efficacy concerns about imported sodium thiopental. This illegitimately obtained and potentially tainted sodium thiopental was used in the executions of Jeffrey Landrigan in 2010 and Eric King in 2011.
The DEA informed Arizona in 2011 that ADCRR had violated the Controlled Substances Act when it imported sodium thiopental. A federal district court in Washington, D.C. found that the importation was a violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, and permanently enjoined the drug from coming into the country. In 2015, in a brazen disregard of a court order, ADCRR again tried to import sodium thiopental, this time from India. FDA stopped the drug at the Houston airport. No one was ever investigated or prosecuted for violating federal law and court orders.
Not to be outdone, in 2014, Ryan wrote that the development of ADCRR's new, two-drug midazolam and hydromorphone formula was based on testimony and affidavits in federal district court in an Ohio lethal-injection matter. There, one dose would do the trick. However, the Ohio execution was problematic — it took 25 minutes instead of the typical few minutes.
Following Ohio's lead, Ryan planned to use that formula for the 2014 execution of Joe Wood. The director, who is not a medical practitioner, simply increased the dosage, though he failed to explain why. When he used the midazolam and hydromorphone formula to execute Wood in 2014, it was a fiasco. It took one hour and fifty-seven minutes for Wood to die and it took 15 doses of the drug, instead of a single dose. ADCRR has never been held accountable for this.
Representations by ADCRR under Director David Shinn concerning the shelf life of the compounded pentobarbital to be used in executions in 2021, were way off. After agreeing to never use expired drugs in an execution, the state represented that its compounded pentobarbital would expire in 90 days when it sought execution dates for two prisoners. After reviewing the scant documentation provided by the state, prisoners' attorneys pointed out that the expiration date of the compounded drugs was 45 days, not 90. ADCRR was forced to admit it made a mistake — but instead of going back to the drawing board, the state shamelessly asked the Arizona Supreme Court to compress the time frame so the executions could go forward on schedule. The court said no.
Professor Corinna Lain, an expert on executions by lethal injection, writes in her forthcoming book, 'Secrets of the Killing States' that in carrying out these death sentences, states surrender 'government transparency, regulatory compliance, freedom of contract, respect for the rule of law, and the utmost care in the most solemn of duties.'
Against this historic backdrop of leadership by former directors, why should we trust Director Ryan Thornell now?
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE